- Joined
- Jan 3, 2014
- Messages
- 16,501
- Reaction score
- 3,829
- Location
- Sheffield
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
Are you talking about AGW deniers?
Yes I agree
In 2000, a warming scientist from East Anglia, Dr. David Viner, went way out on a limb and said there would soon be no more snow in England. From the Independent report of March 20, 2000:
Which claims came true?
Did the England never again experience snow after 2000?
Global Warming Hysteria: 2000—English Children Will Not Know Snow—2010: Oops, Nevermind! | Wesley J. Smith | First Things
What claims are true enough to actully stand up to any scrutiny?
Which claims came true?
Did the England never again experience snow after 2000?
Global Warming Hysteria: 2000—English Children Will Not Know Snow—2010: Oops, Nevermind! | Wesley J. Smith | First Things
What claims are true enough to actully stand up to any scrutiny?
The earth is getting hotter. Only a fool denies this
The operative term being ‘out on a limb’... meaning it was one guy saying extreme stuff, not an accepted position of science.
It’s telling you need to use these extreme examples to pretend you have a point.
The local councils of the UK took the decision to have lots less salt availible for spreading on the roads. It was part of the consensus. You got called a denier if you questioned the wisdom fo it.
It has got very slightly warmer.
Nobody at all, who is not mad, denies that.
What is your point?
That you are interlectually unable to get that idea through your head? It has after all been explained many times to you.
The earth is getting hotter. Only a fool denies this
So what ? Why is that automatically assumed to be a bad thing ? Based on direct observations to date the opposite seems to be the case :thumbs:
Every science agency on the planet disagrees with you
So what ? Why is that automatically assumed to be a bad thing ? Based on direct observations to date the opposite seems to be the case :thumbs:
Yet the Earth keeps getting greener nonetheless
And hotter.
And hotter.
And hotter
As long as its observed to be beneficial thats great ! Longer growing seasons greater crop yields in a greener hungry world . Whats not to like ?
Every science agency on the planet disagrees with you
Yet every directly measurable positive statistic doesn't . Who'd have thunk it ?
Except every science agency on the planet disagrees with you on that
So they are effectively in ''denial' then ?
Carbon Dioxide Fertilization Greening Earth, Study Finds | NASA
It's you who is in denial
So how do you explain my link ?
This is just sad. AGW means you get one positive thing and ten negative things.
Check the NASA climate page
What negative things ? Why is being able to cultivate more food for longer a bad thing ?
Dude I referred you to the page where they are listed. Are you kidding?
No ... I'm not. Why not just answer the question :waiting:
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?